David,

    You are right about the ratification pre-condition.  I must have been 
napping while writing.  What I meant to say was that states' reservations 
re:  the Union were essentially nonexistent during Reconstruction and 
afterwords.
    I don't remember why Mississippi got away with not ratifying the 13th 
Amendment though your thought on it makes perfect sense.
    Thanks for the correction.

best,

Harold
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Kiracofe" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 10:27 AM
Subject: Re: Secession and the Constitution


> Harold,
> I thought ratification of the 13th, 14th and, after 1870, 15th
> amendments were conditions for re-admission.  Am I mis-remembering?
> It suddenly flits through my memory that Mississippi's legislature only
> ratified the 13th amendment in the 1990s (evidently the post-civil war
> era legislature had declined to do so on the gorunds that it was already
> in force as part of the Constitution so a ratification vote from them
> was "unnecessary").
>
> I am in agreement with your statement that "the fantasy of certain
> states' reservations from the Union is just that."  Amen.
>
> David
>
> David Kiracofe
> History
> Tidewater Community College
> Chesapeake Campus
> 1428 Cedar Road
> Chesapeake, Virginia 23322
> 757-822-5136
>>>> Debra Jackson/Harold Forsythe <[log in to unmask]> 02/27/07 9:59
> AM >>>
> All state admissions are and always were subject to Congressional
> scrutiny
> and conditions.  Texas's readmission to the Union was unconditional.
> There
> is, I think, in law and more importantly, practically, no alternative to
> the
> USA as it is now constituted.
>
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
> at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html 

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html